Posted on 01/28/2022 10:05:54 AM PST by M. Dodge Thomas
Researchers have developed a lithium-air battery with an energy density of over 500Wh/kg -- significantly higher than currently lithium-ion batteries. The research team then confirmed that this battery can be charged and discharged at room temperature. In addition, the team found that the battery developed by the team shows the highest energy densities and best cycle life performances ever achieved. These results signify a major step toward the practical use of lithium-air batteries.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
There is always space in any market for vanity, “look at me” purchases.
“So even at 20% gas has about 5 times the usable energy density than the LA battery.”
But with no large engine or transmissions which take up space and add weight.
What advantage. Bottom line, EV fuel costs are lower.
My ICE takes 10 quarts of synthetic oil. $12.95 per online.
Roush will be on the hook for a new supercharge due to simple butterfly valve sticking.
Thanks for the reply. Interesting. How do you suppose the charging station problem and wait time problem will be overcome? And how much of a strain will all the charging be on the grid that already seems over burdened.
I’m a fan of hydrogen fuel cell, thinking it is a much better way that the battery fuel approach.
Happy to have your reply.
“How do you suppose the charging station problem and wait time problem will be overcome? “
Most charging will be done in the garage while the owner is sleeping ...
So how much energy does it take to drag that battery pack around in the car with you? I have read it take a 40 lb battery to equal the energy in 6 oz of gas but that has probably changed.
I keep reading about these amazing advances in battery technology, but somehow they never make it into products.
Here are the stats for charging stations in Cleveland Ohio (not counting chargers at home). I just read an article this morning that churches are putting them. The free market is taking over.
Our power grid expands by 3% on average each year and most states can produce way more than they use. Washington state sells 25% of it’s annual production to Canada.
Cleveland-Elyria Charging Stats
350 Total Stations 39 Free Stations 30 New Stations (90 days) 51 Fast Chargers 12 CHAdeMO Plugs 26 CCS Plugs 24 Superchargers 146 J-1772 Plugs
Top Charging Networks in Cleveland-Elyria
ChargePoint 49 stations Supercharger 24 stations Tesla Destination 17 stations
“But with no large engine or transmissions which take up space and add weight.”
No, instead they come with a ton of batteries which adds even more weight. Electric cars are generally heavier than comparable ICE cars.
I don’t have anything against EVs, but let’s not let our biases get in the way of facts... or reality.
The article and my comment were about the energy density per kg of the cited new-battery technology. It was NOT about your evaluation of the ‘bottom line’ wrt the apparent EV fuel costs that neglect SOURCE, CHARGING installations and times required and all the other support infrastructure needed. But of course you knew that. That’s why the diversion.
“No, instead they come with a ton of batteries which adds even more weight. Electric cars are generally heavier than comparable ICE cars.”
What is your point? EV’S are cheaper to operate and have plenty of torque to handle the extra weight during acceleration.
On braking, that extra weight recharges the battery.
The EV efficiency is greater than 90%. 3x the ICE.
The typical ICE car has thousands of moving parts. The Tesla has 150.
No contest!
My point is, you make statements that are false.
OK you like EV, I have no problem with that. I may get one myself.
But don’t go inventing facts that don’t exist, like implying that ICE cars are a lot heavier.
And now you’re saying that the extra weight is actually beneficial!
I mean it’s OK to be a “fan boy”, but at least realize what you are. It’s always good to stay in touch with reality.
“My point is, you make statements that are false.”
Since you don’t cite an example I assume you are just making that up.
>>Anyone with even a basic understanding if thermo engines knows that most of that energy is lost to heat and not available to power the car.<<
Current gasoline engines have a thermal efficiency of about 40% (40% of the energy of the gasoline gets turned into motion), with some experimental engines getting to 50%
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/nissan-e-power-gasoline-engine-50-percent-thermally-efficient/
Coal-fired electric power plants average thermal efficiency is also around 40%
https://www.williamson.edu/2018/05/the-most-efficient-thermal-power-generation-plants-in-america/
https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.mar.come-hele-or-high-water#
And then you have to account for transmission-line loss, and loss from charging the battery (you don’t get 100% of the power back that you put in)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.